srs is like cosmetic surgery???

I think it should be covered, it's not cosmetic, lots of trans people commit suicide over not being able to transition. It's life saving.

 

Cis people sometimes cannot relate if its not explained.
People might have depressions etc, if surgery can help here it should be covered.
And its cheaper in the long run.

Don't get upset by people not understanding.(*hug*)

 

As if trans people decided to get the surgery on a whim.

I'm sort of torn because it's not 100% medically necessary, but neither are some lesser treatments covered by health insurance. And because of the relative rarity of claims for this, I'd say yeah I will support its coverage.

 

Identity can't be "fixed". In many cases is the medical transition or death or in my case I would propably end up in some mental hospital for the rest of my life and that costs a lot more money than hormones or top surgery I need to be able to live a productive life in my body. I have heard that argument too and if I say I would be willing to afford my hormones and top surgery myself if I would just get the diagnose and a prescription they usually just get mad because "obviously there is something really wrong with you" and after that they usually try to attack me personally. It's all about hate. It has never just been about discussion about money when I have heard people saying that although they would like to believe that themselves I guess. They just want transpeople to disappear and they are searching for an excuse for their irrational hate.

 

yep that's right I'm going through with these procedures just for fun.

I'd just ignore him, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

It's hardly cosmetic. It's about body/mind matchup.

 

Err, I'd compare it more to open heart surgery. Sure, I've met a few trans women who were insecure about their looks, well after transitioning, but they were models or actresses, so had more pressure from society to conform to a female ideal. Totally separate issue.

 

Like cosmetic?? Does that person also think that people choose to be trans?

Come on, it's not cosmetic. It's not just "some nose job" or "some wrinkle removement method" it's a sex change. I think the person has no idea how crucial sex and gender are for one's self-identification. =)

 

It's not cosmetic. It's not something that we just want to do, we don't just want to change our appearance because we can. We do it because we need to. If I where told by the government that I was to stay in my female body, no surgery, I would hate myself. I've tried to see it other ways and just be uplifting and saying that I don't have to get it but I wouldn't be honest with myself if I kept trying to convince myself otherwise.

 

It's definitely not near cosmetic, and should definitely be covered by insurance. In fact, I also think cosmetic surgery should be covered in some form by insurance as well, but that's a discussion for another day. But yeah, it sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.

 

I guess to a layman, it is a medical supply that changes the way you look- and it does. So I guess in that way, it is in the same genre as cosmetic surgery. I guess I would view it as more of a corrective cosmetic surgery, rather than just giving bigger boobs or something.

 

Technically, it is "plastic surgery".

However, it is a nessesary plastic surgery, like that needed to fix the faces of deformed people.

 

It is a necessary surgery for some, but not all transgender people. Some transpeople choose not to undergo surgery and live perfectly happy lives regardless, likewise with people with facial deformations. I don't think its correct to say that its "needed" in all cases.

Consequently I think it should be assessed on a case by case basis - separating those who definitely do need surgery, and those who would like surgery but for whom it is not a priority.

Unfortunately the discussion is needed as insurers or health systems do need to think about what should and should not be covered. A line has to be drawn somewhere (for e.g. should insurers cover wigs, hair transplants, breast implants/augmentation, facial masculinization/feminization, electrolysis etc for transpeople or just the basic reassignment surgery?).

Its a difficult one, as yes these peoples lives could be improved by the above, but there are plenty of other impacting conditions that do not recieve similar funding (for e.g. relatively cheap male hair loss treatment is not available on the NHS due to being deemed cosmetic despite hair loss having a profound impact on some people's mental health, even driving some to suicide).

 

It's covered where I live (my top surgery will be entirely paid for).

I don't think it's comparable to cosmetic surgery. It's necessary for a lot of trans people to be able to live a normal life. Anyways, it costs less to do that than give treatments to depressed people who need the surgery to get better.

 

I don't think it matters if it's cosmetic or not. I'm sure many cisgendered people go through depression because of their body image and have surgery to help. It's clearly life enhancing and sometimes saving.

 

It's not cosmetic surgery, it's life saving and should be covered by insurance.

 

I'd say that HRT is more important than SRS- HRT fundamentally changes the body's hormones and causes most of the important changes. However, I don't consider SRS a cosmetic procedure, either. In the case that a trans person still has really bad genital dysphoria after HRT, SRS would most likely be required to help alleviate that.

 

My opinion is unpopular, but I am going to give it, since I believe there may be other people who share the same opinion but are too afraid to post; thus, your responses are going to be very very biased toward agreeing with your sentiment.

Anyways, I tend to agree that it is similar to cosmetic surgery and should be classified as such. I don't even want to get into the details since it may offend some people.... but I do believe that therapy to deal with issues should be available and considered necessary. Similarly, as people pointed out in a different discussion before, it may actually be cheaper and better for society in the long run to allow "SRS" and "HRT" to be covered as necessary procedures in the long run, despite my opinion. So, maybe it should be considered necessary for that reason.

Obviously, I disagree with the label of "idiot."

 

^ At least give details to supplement your argument. Facts and evidence shouldn't be offensive- if you really do have a reason to claim that HRT and SRS are cosmetic, then I'm listening.

Why put it in quotation marks, though? SRS is "sexual reassignment surgery", and HRT is "hormone replacement therapy". And why have therapy be available for all, when therapy doesn't actually treat the issue, and not the actual treatment? That seems a little inconsistent.